2020 Academy Award Winners

[Marcel Birgelen]

In 2019, movies per capita in North America was around 3.4. That sounds low, but it wasn't all the much higher before streaming and even before home video, unless we return to the era before TV. It was 3.9 in 2010, 4.54 in 2000, 4.29 in 1990, 4.07 in 1980, and 5.42 in 1964. In 1950, before TV was ubiquitous, it was 17.16 and in 1946, the biggest year ever for the movie business, it was an astonishing 29.36.

While it's not "the end of the world", going from 4.54 in 2000 to 3.4 in a little less than two decades is still a considerable reduction, especially in a low-margin business like the exhibition industry. Also, the limited population growth in a market like the U.S. will not offset that reduction. That's why you see the industry trying to improve their margin by offering extra services, that considerably bump the margin per customer. Stuff like "VIP seating", "LPF", full-dinner options, etc.

While I agree with Mike, the theater industry isn't dead, it's still important to keep in the back of your mind that the landscape keeps changing and probably at a faster pace than it did before. If you're the only one serving in a rather isolated market, time might be of the advantage to you, but if you're in a crowded market, it's clear that you need to continue to invest into some (not all) of the later trends to not lose to the competition.

The continuing struggle for the exhibition industry though, is obviously their dependence on the studios that bring them their movies. And it's that part that's struggling much more than the theater industry itself. I agree with Leo that the recent Oscars are just a writing on the wall. Hollywood is fading. While Disney did have a record-breaking year, let's not forget that this happened primarily due to one VERY big success and by simply being the biggest elephant in the room. If you look at the performance of Hollywood as a whole, I think you have to acknowledge that stuff simply isn't looking all that rosy at the moment.

But I think that at the core, there is still that thing that Mike pointed at: As long as Hollywood (or someone else) produces movies that people actually want to see, you'll still see people to go out and flock to the movie theaters. But that also implies that they're released there first.

The Irishman, which was mentioned earlier, is a good example. My personal belief is that part of not getting any good result at the Oscars may be the AMPAS members holding a grudge over this production largely bypassing Hollywood. Also, I don't think this is anywhere near Scorsese's best work. But had this movie seen a broad release in theaters, with a normal release window, I'm sure it would've done pretty well. It might not have been an Avengers movie, but I'm pretty sure it would've marked the Top 5 in many markets.

[Allan Young]

I haven't seen all the other nominated shorts in that category, but I thought Hair Love was a pretty decent animated short. Not a pile of crap at all. But I think I relate to the subject matter better, given my experience with dating black women. Generally speaking I think most white people have no idea at all how much work and expense black people (and black women in particular) have to put into their hair. I didn't really know about those issues until I got a more personal look at it. Us white folks have it comparatively easy with our hair. We can get our hair wet and wash it all the time without worrying so much about breakage and other damage. We don't have to sleep with our hair protected by some cap, scarf or other covering. With that stuff in mind it's more understandable for the little girl and dad in the animated short to feel overwhelmed by her hair situation. It felt like the theme of Hair Love was the little girl learning to like her hair and take pride in it rather than hate it. Her hair is part of who she is. But to each his own. The short movie can be seen on YouTube for anyone to judge for themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNw8V_Fkw28

Sounds like the teachers at a certain London school should be watching Hair Love...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-45521094

A pupil who was repeatedly sent home from school because of her afro hair wants to make sure it doesn't happen to any other UK schoolchild.

Ruby Williams received £8,500 in an out-of-court settlement after her family took legal action against The Urswick School in east London.

She was told her hair breached policy, which stated that "afro style hair must be of reasonable size and length".

The school did not accept any liability.

Ruby told Radio 1 Newsbeat she wants UK schools to have "better guidelines on their uniform policy so that people can't be discriminated against when they're walking into school".

"I'd also like to hope that this story gives confidence to those who might be staying quiet about a similar situation," Ruby added.

[Leo Enticknap]

That's even considering the fact the same actors re-did their own lines in English for the dubbed version.

That's been tried as an alternative to dubbing periodically since the 1930s. Around the time of the conversion to sound, the British and German producers Michael Balcon and Erich Pommer did a number of joint co-productions whereby the same sets and script were used, but a different set of actors for the English and German versions, and for some of them, different directors as well. The idea was to reduce production costs and thus make European movies competitive with Hollywood, but political factors that emerged in the late '20s to mid '30s (not just the obvious one, but protectionist legislation regulating the import of foreign films that sprung up in most western European countries around that time, too) killed the idea off.

The Oscars are not supposed to represent the most popular films.

True, and I wasn't arguing that this should be the only criterion for the awards. But in order for the Oscars to remain an effective storefront for the mainstream movie industry, they can't go too far in the direction of celebrating minority interest art movies and/or political/ideological polemics. I would suggest that every best picture winner since Birdman in 2014 has been either or both. And some, e.g. Moonlight and The Shape of Water, have been such minority interest films that only regular attenders of arthouse theaters had even heard of them before they won the award. If the Oscars wants to avoid becoming an event that only industry insiders take any notice of, AMPAS members have to strike a balance between voting on the basis of virtue signaling, and voting for movies that a significant chunk of the public have seen or would like to see.

The continuing struggle for the exhibition industry though, is obviously their dependence on the studios that bring them their movies. And it's that part that's struggling much more than the theater industry itself.

Exactly. And my earlier point was that if traditional Hollywood (apart from Disney) proves itself unable to provide theaters with popular movies, theaters will look for them elsewhere, a task that digital projection and the ability to play what Hollywood disparagingly calls "alternative content" (by which they mean anything Hollywood didn't make, basically), has made significantly easier than it was in even the recent past.

[Mark Ogden]

If you will recall just a few years ago, the Academy tried to do just that when they announced that a "Best Popular Film" category would be added to the Oscars in addition to Best Picture. It never happened because the idea was almost immediately hooted off the table, it would have reduced the Best Picture winners to "Least Unpopular Arthouse Film" and "Most Profitable Fanservice Movie", diminishments that nobody would want to be recognized for.

It is getting hard to watch the show with all its furious chest-pounding about inclusion. I got so sick and tired hearing about how Greta Gerwig was snubbed for directing Little Women, which is a fine movie that is competently directed, no more. If she was snubbed for doing such a workmanlike job, then James Mangold got a full-on screwing for Ford v. Ferrari, a truly exciting and well crafted picture. This is what is killing the Oscars for me, people whining about left out because they perceive themselves as being a member of an under-represented minority, as opposed to being left out because the job they did was not that remarkable. These people won't be happy until the the whole thing is reduced to Everybody Gets An Oscar Night, where you walk into the Dolby Theatre and find an Oscar statue right under your seat. Maybe they could get Oprah Winfrey to host.

[Leo Enticknap]

I got so sick and tired hearing about how Greta Gerwig was snubbed for directing Little Women, which is a fine movie that is competently directed, no more.

Same thing with Ava DuVernay and Selma, though in that case, those who thought that it should have won best picture and/or best director got to complain about two -isms for the price of one. Furthermore, the direction was only just competent, and the movie was clearly recognizable as an apprentice piece to anyone who has any significant knowledge of the craft skills of filmmaking. The crowd scene on the bridge was well done, but she really struggled to make the interaction between characters believable in the smaller scale scenes. Even the basics, e.g. eyeline matching, were ragged in places. And as for Tom Wilkinson frequently lapsing into a Yorkshire accent while trying to portray George Wallace ... well, I guess DuVernay can't be blamed for that!

[Bobby Henderson]

The continuing struggle for the exhibition industry though, is obviously their dependence on the studios that bring them their movies. And it's that part that's struggling much more than the theater industry itself.

Content from movie studios and how they distribute that content is the really big problem. The movie theaters can do only so much. They're almost powerless to steer the studios in a more positive direction.

American movie studios and their parent companies are totally fixated on making quick, short-term bursts of cash. So they've been speeding up the natural life cycle of a movie release. In running the show like some ADHD teen who lost his Ritalin supply these guys are slowly cutting their own throats. And they're risking taking commercial movie theaters down with them. If things get bad enough the theater chains will have to take more chances showing unconventional content not from a typical major Hollywood studio.

Earlier it was stated movie-going per capita has gone from 4.54 visits per year in 2000 to 3.4 in 2019. That would make current ticket sales numbers 74.8% of what they were nearly 20 years ago. That's a fairly significant decline. Now compound that with the revenue picture on home video. Since 2008 DVD sales have declined 86%. Streaming platforms have seen a lot of growth, up to $12.9 billion. But DVD sales at its peak in 2005 was over $16 billion. Blu-ray sales peaked in 2013 at $2.37 billion, nowhere near enough to offset declines of DVD sales. Blu-ray sales fell to $1.8 billion in 2018 and continue to fall.

The growing number of streaming services (Disney+, Peacock, HBO Max and Apple TV+ to go along with Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu, etc) may do more to fracture an already limited and fickle market than attract more viewers and grow revenue. What will the studios do if things start getting tight? They'll probably shorten the theatrical release window even more -as if it's not brief enough as it is!

Personally I still see movies at the theater from time to time, at least more than 3 or 4 visits per year. But my movie disc buying habits have pretty much dropped off to nothing. I don't buy virtual "digital download" movies. Very often if I don't see a movie at the theater I'm just not going to pay directly to see it. I might watch it if it arrives on HBO, Netflix or whatever. I can't remember the last time I rented a physical Blu-ray disc. Lawton is down to just one video rental store, Family Video out on the West side of town.

Sounds like the teachers at a certain London school should be watching Hair Love...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-45521094

That reminds me of the news story from a couple years ago when a black high school student in New Jersey was given a choice by a referee prior to a wrestling match: cut off his dreadlocks or forfeit the match. The 16-year old intended to cover his hair with a cap (which is permitted by state rules) but was not allowed to do so. The student's coaches protested. An "injury time clock" was started to give a countdown to forfeit. So the kid let a team trainer do a quick, half-ass haircut to satisfy this total asshole of a ref.

Video of the haircut went viral, naturally. The ensuing public outrage invited a microscope onto the referee. In 2016 the same ref agreed to go through "sensitivity training" and an alcohol abuse program after reportedly using the N-bomb toward another official. Obviously this ref has a problem with black people.